swiss_ip_search_trademarks_by_owner

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: pagination via page_size/page_token and return structure (source, total, count, results, next_page_token). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear main sentence, use_case tag, and args/returns sections. It is concise without wasted words, though could be slightly shorter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (search with pagination) and presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, input, and output adequately. Lacks error handling or rate limit info but is sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context, but the schema actually has descriptions for owner_name and page_size. The description lists args with examples (e.g., 'Nestlé*') but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Adequate but not exceptional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Durchsucht' = searches), resource ('Schweizer Marken'), and filter ('nach Inhaber / Anmelder'). It distinguishes from siblings like swiss_ip_search_trademarks_by_class by specifying the owner filter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides specific use cases: Portfolio-Analyse and IP-Monitoring. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings, slightly reducing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.